Sticking with the evolutionary biologist, Razib has a Sokal-esque dig at his philosophical enemies, following news that Dawkins criticised Muslim parents for “importing” creationism into British classrooms. (Read the interview in full at The Times.)

I don’t have any data or information on Muslim views on ‘creationist science’ in the UK, although there have been some stories in the past reporting concern from lecturers about how Muslim and other religious  students view evolution, especially those studying medicine or science subjects. Muslim media have also reported this dismissive attitude — a 2005 summer edition of Q-News apparently suggested that “Harun Yahya had, in the eyes of most ‘literate Muslims’, effectively defeated the arguments of Darwin”. Based on personal experiences, I would also agree that evolutionary science is probably widely dismissed by Muslim students, with many focussing on the ‘practical’ elements of, say, medicine or pharmacology.

But I don’t know if anyone has carried out any serious research into this area (Muslim views on creationism in the UK). And while I get Razib’s point about seriously considering the data on Turkey*, I just don’t think public champions of science like Dawkins can rest their claims about schoolteachers and Muslim pupils on a visit or two to schools — it’s just not good science.

Then there is the choice of words. For me, use of words like “import” is not dissimilar to David Blunkett’s talk of Britian being “swamped” by asylum seekers. Added to his claim that it is “impossible to say anything against Islam in this country” he is alluding the old argument that People Out There Are Threatening To Destroy Our Way Of Life. In fact, his claim that you can’t say what you want about Islam is, to put it very bluntly, bullshit. You can say whatever you want about Muslims and their beliefs and get it published as front page news; you can even peddle yourself as an expert in the media although you may know very little about the subject under discussion**.

This is not to say Dawkins or anyone else cannot have an open and frank discussion about Islam, or any other belief system, without the threat of legal reprecussions (i.e. freedom of speech) or the threat of violence***. But it is worth nothing that none of these debates — whether on the ‘veil’, or on offensive cartoons, or on works of literature — take place inside a vaccum. They have a context — local, national or global context — in which they can be analysed.

*For more on Turkey’s creationism see an earlier post on Talk Islam.

**This includes trivial mistakes and more serious errors.

***Protection from violence in this context can come under ‘legal reprecussions’ — the state is obliged to protect people who express views from such threats and also punish the perpetrators. How far does this legal protection include protection from social, political and economic reprecussions?